Merle: Usually when I insert

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Premise / Conclusion Match11% picked this

   Everyone who has read the new horror novel found the plot disturbing. Indeed, the plot would disturb anyone with a vivid imagination. Therefore, everyone

   This has a conditional premise: vivid imagination → disturbing The premise should be saying "in my experience, usually vivid imagination. Thus, usually disturbing." Instead the premise is about "everyone", when we were looking for a premise that dealt with the author's experience. And the conclusion should be the outcome of the conditional (disturbing), not vivid imagination. This argument had a different flaw of making a backwards (Necessary vs. Sufficient) move.

   11%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match8% picked this

   Some people who have read the new horror novel found the plot disturbing. But the plot would not be disturbing to people who lack

   This has a conditional premise: ~vivid imagination → ~disturbing disturbing → vivid imagination We then have a premise saying, some people found it disturbing. The conclusion would now need to extrapolate for a broader group that there is vivid imagination. Instead, the conclusion is safely worded, pertaining only to the "some people" in this evidence. This isn't a Sampling flaw; in fact it's valid logic.

   8%
3. C

   Bad Premise / Conclusion Match21% picked this

   Many people who have read the new horror novel found the plot disturbing. Undoubtedly, everyone who found the plot disturbing has a vivid imagination.

   This has a conditional premise: found disturbing → vivid imagination We have premise saying "many people = disturbing". The conclusion would now need to extrapolate for a broader group that there is vivid imagination. Instead, the conclusion is safely worded, pertaining only to the "many people" in this evidence. This isn't a Sampling flaw; in fact it's valid logic, just like (B).

   21%
4. D

   Correct49% picked this

   Most people who have read the new horror novel found the plot disturbing. But the plot cannot disturb anyone who lacks a vivid imagination.

   Why this is right

   We have a conditional: disturbing → vivid imagination We have a premise where the trigger is true for some Sample: most [people who have read the novel] found the plot disturbing. Then we have a conclusion that extrapolates the outcome for a broader group: most [people] have vivid imagination This ended up straying a bit from our prediction, since it didn't use the first person, but it still went from "trigger is true for a smaller group" to a conclusion that "outcome is true for a larger group".

   Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   49%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match11% picked this

   Most people who have read the new horror novel found the plot disturbing. But the plot cannot disturb people who lack vivid imaginations. Therefore,

   This has a conditional premise: found disturbing → vivid imagination We have premise saying "most who read novel = disturbing" The conclusion would now need to extrapolate for a broader group that there is vivid imagination. Instead, the conclusion talks about "most people with vivid imaginations" and says they found the plot disturbing. In the original argument, it said "the outcome is true for a broader group". In this answer, it says "for most people that match the outcome, the trigger is true".

   11%